Jimquisition: Accepting the Isms

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Yopaz:

JudgeGame:

Yopaz:

Yeah, this is nothing but my interpretation judging forum debates. I wont deny that or claim that this is representative. Was really my idle speculation worthy to try to start a discussion? Thank you for proving me right for trying to stay out of these things though.

I can say from my own experience that there are a lot of internal arguments among feminists and there groups that have radically different goals. As an example, feminists argue a lot about whether prostitution is defendible or the treatment and respect transsexual women (and men) deserve.

As another more direct example, nobody (who is sane and progressive) is actually claiming that Django Unchained is 100% negative and racist. A lot of people feel there are problematic details that shouldn't be ignored. Knowledge is power and understanding what it is you are seeing and hearing gives you the power over how it affects you. If people choose to dismiss any possibility that a film can carry (unintended) racist ideas, the only thing they can do is accept those racist ideas as undisputed arguments towards racism. Django isn't a racist film, but if you don't question what it is you have just watched, it might as well have been racist.

So what you're saying is that people within a group don't agree on all points? Call the press!

I wasn't saying that everyone in a certain group was extreme. I was saying that those who are extreme often make others come with extreme retaliation. Yes, this isn't universal, but pretty much every sexism thread I have seen escalates to that sooner or later.

I don't even know how you ended up with whatever you wrote in your last post. It seems like you think I don't want to sexism because it's unpleasant or that I don't want to consider the existence of it. I don't like discussing it because it seems impossible to actually have a real discussion. Now if the two of us could meet face to face and discuss this over a cup of tea rather than being two anonymous people not knowing each other I am sure I would have enjoyed it.

Again thanks for proving my point by escalating what I admit was idle speculation. I have learned my lesson and I wont enter a thread where sexism is being discussed.

I don't think you have any idea of what extremism actually is.

I still stand by the collectors edition of Dead Island being offensive, but ok. It's a dismembered torso wearing the flag of the country it's being released in... I am pretty sure their goal was to be offensive, regardless of any apology they may have made. But it's merchandise for a zombie game, so I'd expect it to be something horrible.

Lieju:

Legion:
It used to be a case of unless something was deliberately and obviously trying to be offensive, it was taken as a joke, or seen as light hearted banter.

Also, a lot of minorities just took the abuse.

Besides, I think it's more vital to point out sexism and such stuff when it isn't trying to be offensive.
If someone doesn't realise s/he is being offensive, or has certain kinds of attitudes, isn't it good to inform them of it? To challenge accepted norms and our own attitudes?

For example, my grandmother calls black people 'niggers'.
She doesn't mean anything bad by it, when she was young, that was just the way people talked.
But I'm going to do my best to try to make her stop using that word, because it's meaning is different for most people.

I never said I was referring to minorities. I was referring to the general increase in being thin skinned. In the UK for example comedians are constantly bombarded by the press complaining about their "offensive" humour. They aren't even discussing things such as racism, homophobia or sexism. The content has nothing to do with groups that have been persecuted at all.

For example on the 'Big Fat Quiz of the Year' a bunch of comedians made fun of both the Queen and the President of America. Their comments sparked complaints and the front pages of all of the newspapers were plastered with it. It's absolutely pathetic.

I agree with your point that we should point it out when we see it, we shouldn't just accept it. My issue is that people frequently go looking for it when it isn't there.

A vague example and I apologise but this is how it frequently looks to me:

A guy says something nasty to another person of the same race, gender and sexuality = They are just an asshole.
A guy says something nasty to a person of another race = It's racist.
A guy says something nasty to a woman = It's sexist.
A guy says something nasty to a gay guy = It's homophobic.

The assumption frequently seems to be made that if anybody says/does anything about anybody who is different from them, it has to be because they are different from you rather than other reasons.

That is my issue really. The assumption that something is offensive due to the person being affected, rather than why they are being affected.

I apologise if I have worded this poorly.

xPixelatedx:
I still stand by the collectors edition of Dead Island being offensive, but ok. It's a dismembered torso wearing the flag of the country it's being released in... I am pretty sure their goal was to be offensive, regardless of any apology they may have made. But it's merchandise for a zombie game, so I'd expect it to be something horrible.

That isn't actually a defense. It actually makes it worse, doesn't it?

JudgeGame:
The litmus test is:
1) Choose character.
2) Check for fanfiction of character.
Results:
1) There's fanfiction: sexualized.
2) There's no fanfiction: not sexualized.
3) There's queer fanfiction: sexualized but possibly with a queer target market in mind.

Rule 34.

So everything is sexualized?

I mean the logical conclusion of your test is that My Little Pony is full of heavily sexualized characters and also has a queer target market in mind.

I think your test might be wrong.

boo fucking hoo, someone gets offended. So what? people who get offended are weak human beings.

Great episode it's shameful how often people, myself included, will listen to a person just to argue with them instead of actually hearing them out.

And of course, people who haven't actually watched the video are simply taking the video description and matching it to a pattern they've trained themselves to hate, and posting lengthy rebuttals to points that aren't actually made in this video, thus making the video's point for it.

So thank you, all you moronic misogynist trolls, for proving Jim's point (and the point of anyone with a brain) for him.

Hagi:

JudgeGame:
The litmus test is:
1) Choose character.
2) Check for fanfiction of character.
Results:
1) There's fanfiction: sexualized.
2) There's no fanfiction: not sexualized.
3) There's queer fanfiction: sexualized but possibly with a queer target market in mind.

Rule 34.

So everything is sexualized?

I mean the logical conclusion of your test is that My Little Pony is full of heavily sexualized characters and also has a queer target market in mind.

I think your test might be wrong.

I don't think anybody has ever argued the ponies aren't sexualized. They are given giant eyes, exagerated eyelashes and quaint, feminine gestures.

In any case, you are supposed to apply a gradient as there is no such concept as a 0% sexualized character or a 100% sexualized character. Dante, has about 5 times more more fanfiction and H-pics made about him than Kratos (very rough). Thus, Dante is about 5 times more sexualized than Kratos.

There are outliers. For example, people with rare fetishes or pedophiles, who are attracted to things most people can't relate to in any way. In that sense, furries are similar, which does explain why MLP is more popular than could be predicted.

I said litmus test and I guess I meant rule of thumb.

Look everything we humans make is offensive to somebody, the reason why we don't care is because the fact that someone got offended is so trivial so meaningless that there is no reason for us to care. Its not because we are afraid, like the game industry will continue nothing going to stop that. But to get riled up about someone thinking it was offending medieval people used sex to bully a woman in a game, doesn't even show up on my radar of caring.

The reason why some people get upset and flame is because the OP implied we should care and that is pretty stupid and if there is one thing that can get people flaming is when you're being stupid.

Dexter111:
Other than that, you will excuse me if I think that Jim Sterling is yet again not really voicing his actual opinion on the matter, but jumping on the latest bandwagon to what people want to be hearing as his new reformed self.
At least based on past conversations he's had with actual people and his manner of expression I'd rather not repeat here myself: http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=4298

Yes, because clearly, when one reads up on a subject and educates himself, and then gradually comes to see the other side as correct, that is nothing but "jumping on the latest bandwagon". Really? I mean, REALLY? Are we all shackled to the juvenile nonsense we spewed when we were younger and dumber?

And it is strange, isn't it, how most the video game writers who are worth a damn seem to reach the same conclusion: that these debates are worth having, and the gut reaction of privileged white troglodytes to silence those who disagree with them is a shitty thing and should be condemned.

We all need to be better at realizing that our favourite games can still be flawed, and we need to be willing to have these discussions. If anything, we owe it to the games themselves, so that they can become better, for everyone.

mrhateful:
Look everything we humans make is offensive to somebody, the reason why we don't care is because the fact that someone got offended is so trivial so meaningless that there is no reason for us to care. Its not because we are afraid, like the game industry will continue nothing going to stop that. But to get riled up about someone thinking it was offending medieval people used sex to bully a woman in a game, doesn't even show up on my radar of caring.

The reason why some people get upset and flame is because the OP implied we should care and that is pretty stupid and if there is one thing that can get people flaming is when you're being stupid.

Do you listen to your own advice, or does it not apply?

JudgeGame:
I don't think anybody has ever argued the ponies aren't sexualized. They are given giant eyes, exagerated eyelashes and quaint, feminine gestures.

Wait? What?

That's your definition of sexualization?

Erm... okay... Sure...

I mean if simply having some female attributes is considered sexualization by you then I can understand where you're coming from. But sure, almost all female character, having female attributes, can most surely be considered sexualized by your definition whilst many male characters, having no female attributes, can not be considered sexualized by your definition.

TwiZtah:
boo fucking hoo, someone gets offended. So what? people who get offended are weak human beings.

So, the next time some misinformed politician rambles on about how video-games makes kiddies violent, all the gamers who protest are weak human beings?

JudgeGame:

mrhateful:
Look everything we humans make is offensive to somebody, the reason why we don't care is because the fact that someone got offended is so trivial so meaningless that there is no reason for us to care. Its not because we are afraid, like the game industry will continue nothing going to stop that. But to get riled up about someone thinking it was offending medieval people used sex to bully a woman in a game, doesn't even show up on my radar of caring.

The reason why some people get upset and flame is because the OP implied we should care and that is pretty stupid and if there is one thing that can get people flaming is when you're being stupid.

Do you listen to your own advice, or does it not apply?

I didn't give any advice, I merely stated why things occur as they do.

Also I wanna add that not everything offensive is meaningless. For instance misinformation is always good cause to be offended whether its a game stating all homosexuals are dumb or a politician stating games cause people to become violent. Doesn't matter both equally bad, however a game with some content people dislike is not something I care about since it doesn't impact anyone.

MatsVS:

Dexter111:
Other than that, you will excuse me if I think that Jim Sterling is yet again not really voicing his actual opinion on the matter, but jumping on the latest bandwagon to what people want to be hearing as his new reformed self.
At least based on past conversations he's had with actual people and his manner of expression I'd rather not repeat here myself: http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=4298

Yes, because clearly, when one reads up on a subject and educates himself, and then gradually comes to see the other side as correct, that is nothing but "jumping on the latest bandwagon". Really? I mean, REALLY? Are we all shackled to the juvenile nonsense we spewed when we were younger and dumber?

And it is strange, isn't it, how most the video game writers who are worth a damn seem to reach the same conclusion: that these debates are worth having, and the gut reaction of privileged white troglodytes to silence those who disagree with them is a shitty thing and should be condemned.

We all need to be better at realizing that our favourite games can still be flawed, and we need to be willing to have these discussions. If anything, we owe it to the games themselves, so that they can become better, for everyone.

So...

We should silence the 'privileged white troglodytes' instead since we disagree with them?

See, that's the problem with this video. It doesn't take the side of having these issues open to debate. It takes the side of having these issues open to debate but only for everyone who agrees that they're sexist/racist/homophobic.

If someone attempts to silence your point of view then the appropriate reaction is to ignore them, you have a right to your opinion that nobody can take away. The appropriate reaction is not to attempt to silence them in turn, they also have a right to their opinion that you can't take away.

Hagi:

JudgeGame:
I don't think anybody has ever argued the ponies aren't sexualized. They are given giant eyes, exagerated eyelashes and quaint, feminine gestures.

Wait? What?

That's your definition of sexualization?

Erm... okay... Sure...

I mean if simply having some female attributes is considered sexualization by you then I can understand where you're coming from. But sure, almost all female character, having female attributes, can most surely be considered sexualized by your definition whilst many male characters, having no female attributes, can not be considered sexualized by your definition.

Last time I checked, women didn't have giant eyes, their eyelashes are the same length as a man and they can choose to express themselves in a quaint, femenine manner. Oh, I forgot to mention the ponies have massive asses that jiggle like crazy. Most women don't have asses like that.

Hagi:

MatsVS:

Dexter111:
Other than that, you will excuse me if I think that Jim Sterling is yet again not really voicing his actual opinion on the matter, but jumping on the latest bandwagon to what people want to be hearing as his new reformed self.
At least based on past conversations he's had with actual people and his manner of expression I'd rather not repeat here myself: http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=4298

Yes, because clearly, when one reads up on a subject and educates himself, and then gradually comes to see the other side as correct, that is nothing but "jumping on the latest bandwagon". Really? I mean, REALLY? Are we all shackled to the juvenile nonsense we spewed when we were younger and dumber?

And it is strange, isn't it, how most the video game writers who are worth a damn seem to reach the same conclusion: that these debates are worth having, and the gut reaction of privileged white troglodytes to silence those who disagree with them is a shitty thing and should be condemned.

We all need to be better at realizing that our favourite games can still be flawed, and we need to be willing to have these discussions. If anything, we owe it to the games themselves, so that they can become better, for everyone.

So...

We should silence the 'privileged white troglodytes' instead since we disagree with them?

See, that's the problem with this video. It doesn't take the side of having these issues open to debate. It takes the side of having these issues open to debate but only for everyone who agrees that they're sexist/racist/homophobic.

If someone attempts to silence your point of view then the appropriate reaction is to ignore them, you have a right to your opinion that nobody can take away. The appropriate reaction is not to attempt to silence them in turn, they also have a right to their opinion that you can't take away.

I for one have no problem letting somebody talk as long as they are going to be civil about it, no matter how wrong their ideas may be. I know a lot of people who are willing to do this.

JudgeGame:

Hagi:

JudgeGame:
I don't think anybody has ever argued the ponies aren't sexualized. They are given giant eyes, exagerated eyelashes and quaint, feminine gestures.

Wait? What?

That's your definition of sexualization?

Erm... okay... Sure...

I mean if simply having some female attributes is considered sexualization by you then I can understand where you're coming from. But sure, almost all female character, having female attributes, can most surely be considered sexualized by your definition whilst many male characters, having no female attributes, can not be considered sexualized by your definition.

Last time I checked, women didn't have giant eyes, their eyelashes are the same length as a man and they can choose to express themselves in a quaint, femenine manner. Oh, I forgot to mention the ponies have massive asses that jiggle like crazy. Most women don't have asses like that.

Last time I checked commercials for products to make a woman's eyes appear bigger and their lashes longer through careful application of make-up where pretty common.

As for pony asses I fear I haven't got the faintest clue, it's not something I find myself paying attention to. I'll take your word for it that they're apparently very big and very jiggly and thus highly sexualized.

i am somehow blissfully ignorent of the problems with earthworm jims creator... any one have a link to anything i can read up on?

wizzy555:
People don't seem to understand that not all stories are moral messages. Skyrim has a mission to abduct a priest into a cannibal cult and EAT him, this is not a "pro-cannibal" message. Like-wise the "slut-shaming" quest in skyrim is not "pro slut-shaming". Skyrim is a true RPG in that it gives you the option to be entirely unethical but lets you stop and do something else should you decide to.

Skyrim is a good example of one of the more gender equalised games on the market. The women (in the unmodded versions) are hardly sexualised and you find people of different genders in most professions.

BTW I'm not telling anyone to shut up, I'm disagreeing with you.

Certainly, RPGs should give gamers a diverse selection of roles to act out. But the "The Taste of Death" quest and the "Boethiah's Calling" quest are different to the "Mark of Dibella" quest (these are Skyrim, naturally) in that they present recognizably unrealistic scenarios. I'm not suggesting that the selection of 'bad' options in RPGs must be unrealistic. Rather, it is reasonable that people want to discuss the broader implications of the "Mark of Dibella" quest and not the others. Nobody is concerned that a game will popularize cannibalism or human sacrifice, but the condemnation of women for having sex is real and happens around the world. I agree with Jim that we should be open to discussing it.

Hagi:

JudgeGame:

Hagi:

Wait? What?

That's your definition of sexualization?

Erm... okay... Sure...

I mean if simply having some female attributes is considered sexualization by you then I can understand where you're coming from. But sure, almost all female character, having female attributes, can most surely be considered sexualized by your definition whilst many male characters, having no female attributes, can not be considered sexualized by your definition.

Last time I checked, women didn't have giant eyes, their eyelashes are the same length as a man and they can choose to express themselves in a quaint, femenine manner. Oh, I forgot to mention the ponies have massive asses that jiggle like crazy. Most women don't have asses like that.

Last time I checked commercials for products to make a woman's eyes appear bigger and their lashes longer through careful application of make-up where pretty common.

As for pony asses I fear I haven't got the faintest clue, it's not something I find myself paying attention to. I'll take your word for it that they're apparently very big and very jiggly and thus highly sexualized.

Well duh, why did you think women put make-up on? To look less sexually attractive? I think there's been some comic misunderstanding here.

JudgeGame:

Hagi:

JudgeGame:

Last time I checked, women didn't have giant eyes, their eyelashes are the same length as a man and they can choose to express themselves in a quaint, femenine manner. Oh, I forgot to mention the ponies have massive asses that jiggle like crazy. Most women don't have asses like that.

Last time I checked commercials for products to make a woman's eyes appear bigger and their lashes longer through careful application of make-up where pretty common.

As for pony asses I fear I haven't got the faintest clue, it's not something I find myself paying attention to. I'll take your word for it that they're apparently very big and very jiggly and thus highly sexualized.

Well duh, why did you think women put make-up on? To look less sexually attractive? I think there's been some comic misunderstanding here.

They put make-up on to look attractive. That does not automatically make it sexual.

Not everything considered feminine is sexual. That's your misunderstanding.

JudgeGame:

Last time I checked, women didn't have giant eyes, their eyelashes are the same length as a man and they can choose to express themselves in a quaint, femenine manner. Oh, I forgot to mention the ponies have massive asses that jiggle like crazy. Most women don't have asses like that.

Wow, just Wow. I tought I heard it all. Big eyes = sexualization. And jiggling asses, oh boy. To be fair I havent watched MLP much at all (seen random clips online, dont care for it personally) but I never noticed any jiggling asses.

Fiairflair:

wizzy555:
People don't seem to understand that not all stories are moral messages. Skyrim has a mission to abduct a priest into a cannibal cult and EAT him, this is not a "pro-cannibal" message. Like-wise the "slut-shaming" quest in skyrim is not "pro slut-shaming". Skyrim is a true RPG in that it gives you the option to be entirely unethical but lets you stop and do something else should you decide to.

Skyrim is a good example of one of the more gender equalised games on the market. The women (in the unmodded versions) are hardly sexualised and you find people of different genders in most professions.

BTW I'm not telling anyone to shut up, I'm disagreeing with you.

Certainly, RPGs should give gamers a diverse selection of roles to act out. But the "The Taste of Death" quest and the "Boethiah's Calling" quest are different to the "Mark of Dibella" quest (these are Skyrim, naturally) in that they present recognizably unrealistic scenarios. I'm not suggesting that the selection of 'bad' options in RPGs must be unrealistic. Rather, it is reasonable that people want to discuss the broader implications of the "Mark of Dibella" quest and not the others. Nobody is concerned that a game will popularize cannibalism or human sacrifice, but the condemnation of women for having sex is real and happens around the world. I agree with Jim that we should be open to discussing it.

Absolutely, we can say "skyrim contains a reference to slut-shaming, slut-shaming is blah blah". But that doesn't make the game "bad" or "sexist" or the designers misogynistic.

Actually people are concerned that video games promote violence, (a broader interpretation of human sacrifice).

I actually think my little pony raises issues of feudalism and institutionalised social inequality. But I don't yell at people about it.

I agree overall apart from one point. In the video, Jim said that gamers lash out against these arguments because they "fear that games will be taken away from them". I think that people lash out against accusations of sexism/racism/whatever because its easier than having to admit that you might be a little bit sexist/racist/whatever.

Put it this way. We all like to think of ourselves as educated, rational and generally kind hearted people. We live in the 21st century, we all have a vague idea about what sexism is and that its wrong. We know that buses shouldn't be segregated and that women should be allowed to work and vote. However, just because we understand it intellectually, doesn't mean that it translates into our everyday actions.
Its quite rare that we actually step back and evaluate our everyday behaviours. Let's imagine you watch a movie and chat with your friends about it afterwards. You'll probably talk about the acting, the action scenes, the script. If its a movie with an explicit Big Idea, like the Matrix, you may even talk about that. However, unless you've just watched The Hours, how often do you leave the movie and discussed the portrayal of the female characters?

Each one of us probably commits a number of minor sexist/racist/ageist actions in our everyday lives without really calling them into question. If someone makes a joke about women getting back in the kitchen, they aren't going to stop and think "how does this joke reinforce negative stereotypes?". When someone points out that a movie or a game we enjoyed might be sexist or racist, then we have to face up to the uncomfortable truth that we may be sexist or racist.
This isn't a nice thing for anyone to admit, so instead a lot of people just attack the source. Whenever someone is told they said something inappropriate, its always "it's political correctness gone mad" or "oh, you can't take a joke" rather than "that was ill thought out and offensive, I'm sorry".
I doubt that very few of the people that attacked Sarkeesian would say "yes, I'm sexist, I believe in the subjugation of women".

We've all experienced similar phenomena, when people would rather criticise us when they are clearly in the wrong. People criticise you for working/studying hard because its easier than to admit they aren't working/studying hard enough. Or if you tell someone that you are on a diet, they are likely to say something along the lines of "all that fad diet stuff is mumbo jumbo and snake oil", because they don't want to face up to the fact that they eat badly.

Hagi:

JudgeGame:

Hagi:

Last time I checked commercials for products to make a woman's eyes appear bigger and their lashes longer through careful application of make-up where pretty common.

As for pony asses I fear I haven't got the faintest clue, it's not something I find myself paying attention to. I'll take your word for it that they're apparently very big and very jiggly and thus highly sexualized.

Well duh, why did you think women put make-up on? To look less sexually attractive? I think there's been some comic misunderstanding here.

They put make-up on to look attractive. That does not automatically make it sexual.

Not everything considered feminine is sexual. That's your misunderstanding.

I have no idea what you define as attractive. This is highly amusing to me. I'm also curious about your sexual orientation if you don't mind me asking.

Devin Barker:
i am somehow blissfully ignorent of the problems with earthworm jims creator... any one have a link to anything i can read up on?

It's in one of his previous videos, sorry I don't remember which one.

JudgeGame:

Hagi:

JudgeGame:

Well duh, why did you think women put make-up on? To look less sexually attractive? I think there's been some comic misunderstanding here.

They put make-up on to look attractive. That does not automatically make it sexual.

Not everything considered feminine is sexual. That's your misunderstanding.

I have no idea what you define as attractive. This is highly amusing to me. I'm also curious about your sexual orientation if you don't mind me asking.

I have no idea how you define sexualised. Personally I find huge phallus shaped things to be sexual in which case the ponies aren't sexual

(see anyone can play that game)

Agree so much with the end of the video about how you can talk about a part of a game being shitty without calling the entire game shit. Not just about the isms, but about ANYTHING. Point out that any game isn't perfect even though you really like it, and there's always a legion of fanboys waiting to pounce on you with the tired old bullshit "Go back to CoD" or the like. Example, I really like my PS3, but Sony and many aspects about the PS3 are far far FAR from perfect. Call out the things that should be improved though (for example, the new Playstation Store is an abomination, a complete downgrade from the previous store in every way. the store itself has its own patches like games do now, the load times are horrendous, and the store is organized so poorly that the specific games section is filled with avatars and going to the "new this week" section doesn't show you everything that came out this week just to name a couple of massive problems that piss me off every time I go on there), and all the Sony fanboys care to say is "get the fuck out here you 360 fanboy". Because, you know, anyone who points out anything wrong with the PS3 can only be an evil 360 lover out to make the PS3 look bad. I hate fanboys so much.

erttheking:
I just want to talk about video games without shouting and without saying what I hate about them every once in awhile.

Then why did you come to a thread for a video that's saying it's okay to talk about when games do something wrong? In fact, you're not even discussing the video at all. You're just pointlessly derailing the thread, which is another thing the people of this forum do far too often.

the Dept of Science:
I agree overall apart from one point. In the video, Jim said that gamers lash out against these arguments because they "fear that games will be taken away from them". I think that people lash out against accusations of sexism/racism/whatever because its easier than having to admit that you might be a little bit sexist/racist/whatever.

Put it this way. We all like to think of ourselves as educated, rational and generally kind hearted people. We live in the 21st century, we all have a vague idea about what sexism is and that its wrong. We know that buses shouldn't be segregated and that women should be allowed to work and vote. However, just because we understand it intellectually, doesn't mean that it translates into our everyday actions.
Its quite rare that we actually step back and evaluate our everyday behaviours. Let's imagine you watch a movie and chat with your friends about it afterwards. You'll probably talk about the acting, the action scenes, the script. If its a movie with an explicit Big Idea, like the Matrix, you may even talk about that. However, unless you've just watched The Hours, how often do you leave the movie and discussed the portrayal of the female characters?

Each one of us probably commits a number of minor sexist/racist/ageist actions in our everyday lives without really calling them into question. If someone makes a joke about women getting back in the kitchen, they aren't going to stop and think "how does this joke reinforce negative stereotypes?". When someone points out that a movie or a game we enjoyed might be sexist or racist, then we have to face up to the uncomfortable truth that we may be sexist or racist.
This isn't a nice thing for anyone to admit, so instead a lot of people just attack the source. Whenever someone is told they said something inappropriate, its always "it's political correctness gone mad" or "oh, you can't take a joke" rather than "that was ill thought out and offensive, I'm sorry".
I doubt that very few of the people that attacked Sarkeesian would say "yes, I'm sexist, I believe in the subjugation of women".

We've all experienced similar phenomena, when people would rather criticise us when they are clearly in the wrong. People criticise you for working/studying hard because its easier than to admit they aren't working/studying hard enough. Or if you tell someone that you are on a diet, they are likely to say something along the lines of "all that fad diet stuff is mumbo jumbo and snake oil", because they don't want to face up to the fact that they eat badly.

I find it particularly sad when people take criticism at a game or a film as a personal criticism. Like, they completely identify with that thing and are prepared to proclaim "This is who I am."

That's sad. You are a complete human being with millions of thoughts, emotions and opinions. You aren't a videogame. You are much more complex than that and as a developed mind you can identify things about you in a videogame and things not about you. Don't let the side down, please.

wizzy555:

Devin Barker:
i am somehow blissfully ignorent of the problems with earthworm jims creator... any one have a link to anything i can read up on?

It's in one of his previous videos, sorry I don't remember which one.

It's the Phil Fish one. The Earthworm Jim creator compared Homosexual Marriage to a man taking a dump on a women's toilet, what a classy man.

JudgeGame:

Hagi:

JudgeGame:

Well duh, why did you think women put make-up on? To look less sexually attractive? I think there's been some comic misunderstanding here.

They put make-up on to look attractive. That does not automatically make it sexual.

Not everything considered feminine is sexual. That's your misunderstanding.

I have no idea what you define as attractive. This is highly amusing to me. I'm also curious about your sexual orientation if you don't mind me asking.

Attractive is aesthetically pleasing.

A waterfall can be attractive. An abstract statue can be attractive. A man can be attractive. A woman can be attractive.

Sexualized means, to me, arousing.

As I'm personally straight I've thus far only found women to be arousing.

MatsVS:
Yes, because clearly, when one reads up on a subject and educates himself, and then gradually comes to see the other side as correct, that is nothing but "jumping on the latest bandwagon". Really? I mean, REALLY? Are we all shackled to the juvenile nonsense we spewed when we were younger and dumber?

Except Sterling often changes his opinion about as fast as he changes his underpants and is very often deliberately provocative and using the "hot button issues" as a means to gain hits. He does or rather did this with his reviews too (giving games their highest or lowest score on Metacritic for the sole reason of getting attention) and has even admitted to it in the past, since the thing he craves most is the click-baity attention he gets from it and additional shows and columns promising him even more money.
That's why I would take what he says with a huge grain of salt every time.

We all need to be better at realizing that our favourite games can still be flawed, and we need to be willing to have these discussions. If anything, we owe it to the games themselves, so that they can become better, for everyone.

There is no side that is categorically "correct", there is just different opinions clashing against each other.
If you are trying to discuss a game being flawed you can only do that by reffering to its gameplay mechanics, plot mechanisms, the strength of the characterization etc. and not via matters of taste or what a certain subset of people considers "offensive". People will have to realize at some point that even games like Dead or Alive: Volleyball or Postal 2 have a reason to exist, and if there's no demand for them the market will reject them and they won't be made anymore. Games are entertainment foremost and not edutainment or otherwise obliged to adhere to and make moral statements for the benefit of all civilization.

If everyone got on his respective soapbox in regards to what he doesn't "like" or what he finds "offensive" in regards to books, movies or music as much as our dear "gaming journalists" seem to do in regards to games lately there'd be shit for choice and entire music/movie genres wouldn't exist to begin with. (from zombie, splatter to any movies containing any sexual content to rap, heavy metal, techno, jazz and possibly even rock - all of these things were (and often still are) considered the devils work at some point)

JudgeGame:

I have a hard time convincing myself this question even deserves an answer.
image

The entire zombie genre dehumanizes people. Literally. It's horror, it's kind of the point. If you think all but a very few men actually get off on this then maybe you are the sick one.

Intent is important.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here